9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 932X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered the contentions of the respondent in his written submissions. 2. The appellant (Bhubaneshwar Development Authority) allotted MIG house bearing No. M-19, to the respondent, as per letter of allotment dated 1.5.1991. A lease-cum-sale agreement was entered between the appellant and the respondent on 6.5.1991. Clause (2) of the agreement stipulated the price of the house to be ₹ 139,215/40. After deducting the payment of ₹ 37,415/- made by the lessee towards the price (on 29.6.1990), it permitted the lessee to pay the balance of ₹ 101,800/40 in 52 quarterly instalments of ₹ 1957/70 each commencing from 1.9.1989. The said clause gave the option to the Lessee to convert the lease into a sale on completion of pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as compensation from the appellant. The District Forum by the order dated 27.10.2003 dismissed the complaint holding that refusal to execute a sale deed until the amount due was paid, was not a deficiency in service. The respondent filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack. The State Commission by its order dated 21.12.2006 allowed the appeal in part and directed the respondent to pay a lump sum of ₹ 20,000/- to the appellant in full and final settlement of the dues and directed the appellant to execute the sale deed on receipt of such amount. The appellant filed a revision before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, challenging the reduction in the amount payable, as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t under clause (6) from the date of default to date of payment on the defaulted amount is unexceptionable and does not amount to charging of compound interest as wrongly assumed by the State Commission and National Commission. 6. Even if we assume that the price of ₹ 139,215.40 stipulated in the lease-cum-sale agreement included, in addition to the cost of the plot and the construction of the house, interest thereon, the position will be no different. Each equated instalment would then have a principal component and interest component. As the equated instalments would include interest on the principal only up to the due date of instalment, whenever there is a default, there can be no dispute that the `principal' part of the ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instalments, or where the rate of interest on default is punitively excessive, the position may be different. But no such case is made out by the respondent. 7. If the facts are examined, it becomes evident that the sum of ₹ 57,175/- was not due on account of charging compound interest. Though the allotment was made on 1.5.1991 and the lease-cum-sale agreement was signed on 6.5.1991, clause (2) of the lease-cum-sale agreement contained a rather unusual condition that the quarterly instalment of ₹ 1957/70 would commence from 1.9.1989, which is a date 28 months prior to the date of allotment and lease-cum-sale agreement. The reason for such a provision was that the last date for applications and allotment of houses under the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... talment only on 25.6.1991. There was thus an accumulated default in regard to the payments due between 1.9.1989 and 6.5.1991 on which interest was payable under clause (6). There were also some delay in paying the subsequent instalments. If the Development Authority charged interest for the defaulted/delayed instalments, in accordance with clause (6) of the lease-cum-sale agreement, the respondent could not object to the same. We are therefore of the view that the orders of the State Commission and National Commission are not justified. 8. The case of the respondent in its complaint was that the interest could not be charged from September, 1989 as the allotment was made only on 1.5.1991 followed by the lease-cum-sale agreement on 6.5.19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these is alleged and made out, the complaint will have to be rejected. When a lessee signs without protest an agreement agreeing to pay interest at a given rate from a given date in given circumstances, and does not contend that the term relating to instalments or interest is invalid or inequitable, it is not open to the consumer forum to grant any relief. A demand for any amount due in terms of the unchallenged terms of an agreement, does not furnish a cause of action to the lessee/allottee to approach the consumer forum. 9. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the orders of the State Commission and National Commission and restore the order of the District Forum. We, however, make it clear that on payment of the balance amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
